The Claimant was dismissed after the Respondent concluded that while the Claimant had improved as a therapist she was still not at the standard required, and because of her recent conduct issues. This came after the Claimant had attended an intensive training course and made allegations of race discrimination which were protected acts. The Claimant made a claim of victimisation dismissal which was dismissed, the ET concluding that the reason for the Claimant's dismissal was not that she had done those protected acts. It was because of her conduct in her dealings with her colleagues and the fact that the Respondent decided that her behaviour was not conducive towards the spa environment, either in terms of the business's image or her role. Her protected acts did not in any way influence that conclusion. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The ET's approach to and reasons for its judgment in relation to the Claimant's complaint of victimisation dismissal and some of the evidence were unclear. Overall, and on the particular facts of the case, the lack of findings about the dismissing officers' knowledge or belief of the protected acts having been done, and other concerns in the findings and reasoning for its conclusions, the victimisation complaint only was remitted to a freshly constituted ET for re-hearing, for the ET to consider whether the Claimant's dismissal was because of victimisation contrary to ss 27 and 39 EA 2010.